Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Matthew, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein...

adel sadeq: on 3/14/15 at 9:05am UTC, wrote Sorry, I don't know how I got here. This reminds me of the time I fell...

Joe Fisher: on 3/13/15 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Matty, Your essay concerned repeating some of the unrealistic...

Matthew Hoban: on 3/12/15 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I'm not sure how your writings are a response to what I said in...

Matthew Hoban: on 3/12/15 at 23:38pm UTC, wrote Dear adel, It's probably best if you address your concerns to George...

Joe Fisher: on 3/12/15 at 20:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Hoban, You wrote: “Many ask what good is it to have a physical...

adel sadeq: on 3/12/15 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Dear George, My idea is a counterexample to your proposition,...

Matthew Hoban: on 3/10/15 at 22:39pm UTC, wrote Dear George, Thanks for taking the time to look at my essay. First of all,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Undecidability: The No-Man's Land between Theory and Experiment by Matthew Joseph Hoban [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Matthew Joseph Hoban wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 16:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Theoretical Computer Science was one of the great intellectual developments of the 20th Century and only very recently have its ideas been integrated into basic science. I argue that these ideas and tools could be vital to understanding the relationship between mathematics and physics. In particular, if we are to ask if the utility of mathematics is a trick or otherwise, then we can use methods from the theory of cryptography and computation to pitch theory and experiment up against each other. Given this perspective we can ask if an experimenter can convince us to accept the theorist's version of events. I will outline that this contest is not as simple as it initially seems. There could be a stalemate between theory and experiment and it comes in the form of undecidability: a theorist can neither confirm or deny if Nature is behaving according to our most-trusted physical theories. Surprisingly, undecidability is a very real prospect in our current theories as I will discuss, and it forces us to question the relationship between mathematics and physics.

Author Bio

Matty Hoban is currently a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. His research interests are at the foundational end quantum information. He enjoys computational complexity far too much for a physicist.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



George Gantz wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 00:47 GMT
Matty -

A remarkable essay and a quite interesting finding. Does it not leave us a bit at a loss if the physics problems we are trying to study are undecidable? I tried to take this concept a but further down the road (looking at the linked issues of incompleteness, undecidability and incompatibility) and would love to know what you think of my conclusion - that there is a "Hole at the Center of Creation."

You may also find Tommaso Bolognese's essay "Two Spherical Chickens" of considerable interest.

With deepest respect - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Joseph Hoban replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for taking the time to look at my essay. First of all, I don't really think this leaves us a bit of a loss in general, as long as our physical theories give us "a story" or adequate scientific explanation. If a problem is undecidable but the theory from which it results has an adequate realist interpretation, I would still be happy with the theory and accept the limitations in making predictions. On the other hand, quantum physics poses severe problems to a satisfactory realist interpretation so one often resorts to the theory in pure operational terms. When reduced to this operational description as a means to just "shut up and calculate", it is not satisfactory if the "calculate" part is not even possible. We are forced to just "shut up".

I will have a look at your essay when I get a chance. And thanks for the recommendations.

Best,

Matty

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear George,

My idea is a counterexample to your proposition, you will not agree to it but I hope it will be of some help.

Essay

Thanks and good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Joseph Hoban replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear adel,

It's probably best if you address your concerns to George directly on his entry page.

Best,

Matty

Bookmark and Share


adel sadeq replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 09:05 GMT
Sorry, I don't know how I got here. This reminds me of the time I fell asleep on a train to Brighton only to end up in Portsmouth!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Dr. Hoban,

You wrote: “Many ask what good is it to have a physical theory if it cannot give us good predictions?”

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Joseph Hoban replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 23:42 GMT
Dear Joe,

I'm not sure how your writings are a response to what I said in my essay. Thanks for the comment though.

I doubt Astronomers have not noticed that galaxies have a unique structure. I would say that the intentions of physics are to understand the fundamental causes of this uniqueness which hopefully results from universal laws that affect all galaxies. That is, we are not interested in particular properties of a system but more how these properties come to be and how they can change.

Best,

Matty

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Matty,

Your essay concerned repeating some of the unrealistic abstract theories of men long dead. I wrote about reality. As you are aware, the principle question of the Foundational Questions Institute concerns how the real Universe operates. I presented you with my contention that real light is inert and there is no physical space in the hope of converting you to realism. I am sorry that you apparently did not understand what I wrote.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Matthew,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.